Follow-up Comment #7, patch #1936 (project freeciv):

Just to add a little more on the trade idea: A well balanced game would treat
gold(trade) upkeep very similar to shield upkeep. As the game stands it is not
hard to have cities produce massive numbers of shields but very little trade.
What limits those "industrial" cities from making infinite military units is
the unhappy citizens.

Using trade really is no different, a unit's home city has to pay for it in
gold and in citizen moral. Because each city has a set amount of trade
resources; no one city can be the "home" city to an infinite unit count. Plus
remember cities have to use gold to pay for their improvements as well. Paying
for those probably should happen before paying for military units (not real
sure on this).

>From a player standpoint a limit on unitcount based on trade makes more
intuitive sense then a limit based on how many people the city has. You have
to pay for these units, richer cities are going to be able to afford more
then poorer cities. Even if the units were built("trained") in an
"industrial/shield" city then based at a rich city; there still is a natural
constraint based on city resources. Building things at a factory and using
the output to defend a nation's wealth has been done by nations all
throughout history.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Gna!

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to